A Sad Milestone - CNN Report

[JohnCrichton]

Well written eulogy for something I sincerely believe just should have never happened in the first place. A good read, especially the part about how this number was reached mainly after the declaration of "Mission Accomplished."
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/09/07/1000.fallen.ap/index.html

[Evil & Lovin It]

I agree with you.

Funny thing: Most of the experts actually did predict that there would be many U.S. deaths, and that after the war was "over" the would be problems with insurgency, and that it would turn into a sort of no way out situation.

But you know, hey, what do experts know huh? (sarcasm)

[g_UnIt_GaNsTa]

2 people from my small hometown died within 5 days of each other. One was from the unit my best friend is in.

I think Iraq was a threat that needed to be silenced, it had WMDs, and Saddam could've just dumped them all into the ocean or something.

[cross blues]

that's what happens when you invade a people's homeland. (vietnam, n. korea, soviet invasion of afghanistan)

and let's not forget, the draft wasn't used in this war. every soldier volunteered, knowing it could mean his/her life. the real sad part is that 1000 americans had to die so george w. could look like a hero and the good old usa could steal some oil. the real heroes are the iraqis who gave their lives in a desperate attempt to save their homes.

[jeffrey 228]

Well let's face it there is going to be even more people going to join in this war and that this is why I don't want to get this to continue, becaise for all I know we are going to see alot of high schoolers this year probbly in this war as well, and thatafter there training, it is likly some of them may never return, beleve me they are a bit young but it seems that is how people are if they trust a President that supports war, and that is just down right bad.

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,

Depending on whether you prefer alphabetical or chronological order, visit the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/national/20040909_THOUSAND_GRAPHIC/index_PICTURES.html) or the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/iraq/casualties/facesofthefallen.htm), respectively.

Support the troops (http://www.anysoldier.us/index.cfm), if you are so inclined. I'd link to a humanitarian organization for the Iraqi people as well, but I'm honestly not sure how many of them are still in the country.

-- Ed/Ace

[Eddie G.]

and let's not forget, the draft wasn't used in this war. every soldier volunteered, knowing it could mean his/her life. True however there have been some judgments against how the US military is advertised, that it shows the great things that you can get out of joining the military while downplaying that by joining you agree to defend, fight for, and die for your nation. But of course that has not yet been proven, it is something some people speculate.

It is a shame, and my heart goes out to everyone who has died in this war, it is a shame that this happened.

I think Iraq was a threat that needed to be silenced, it had WMDs, and Saddam could've just dumped them all into the ocean or something.
Interesting theory however when you ignore the closed body of waters that are in Iraq the only real place that Saddam could have ordered the weapons to be dropped was the Persian Gulf. But a huge transport like that is something we would or at least I like to believe we would have known about.

[EinBebop]

As the majority of soldiers in Iraq believe in the task they're performing, I doubt many of the thousand dead would appreciate their deaths being used to condemn their commander-in-chief.

[AndreaBeaumont]

Some don't, some joined because they were too poor to make anything of themselves through their own means. Couldn't pay for college and this was a way, couldn't help their families because they couldn't get a decent job. You forgot about those. I know someone I went to HS with and is one, in Iraq, and right before he left he said he didn't know why we're there.

[Eddie G.]

As the majority of soldiers in Iraq believe in the task they're performing, I doubt many of the thousand dead would appreciate their deaths being used to condemn their commander-in-chief.I agree to a degree. I think the deaths do say something about the war and how the administration has handled the war, what it says is for the voters to decide. However I do disagree with people who say that the soilders are monsters or that Bush is a monster because that is based on insane conspiracy theories instead of our President's actual flaws and the actual flaws in this war.

[Czar Gato]

Some don't, some joined because they were too poor to make anything of themselves through their own means. Couldn't pay for college and this was a way, couldn't help their families because they couldn't get a decent job. You forgot about those. I know someone I went to HS with and is one, in Iraq, and right before he left he said he didn't know why we're there.There definitely are people of both types, that's true. I know a couple guys who were reluctant to go because they didn't believe in the cause, and I've known several who are supportive of the war 100% and said a lot of good has come from it. It certainly hasn't deterred everyone from joining the armed forces, as I know one guy who joined the Marines and is eager to fight because he thinks it's the right thing, as well as a few others who are seriously considering because they believe the same thing.

[Chris Wood]

As the majority of soldiers in Iraq believe in the task they're performing, I doubt many of the thousand dead would appreciate their deaths being used to condemn their commander-in-chief.

Well, they also probably don't appreciate their commander in chief using their blood and sweat to try to win votes.

[sun]

1000, how many more..another number 3300, lowest definitely confirmed number of civilian deaths.Children, old people walking near a bomb, neighbors, non combatants, people walking on the street.This number, is definite, I have read estimates as high as 20,000 civilian deaths. Let us say, the real number is somewhere double the definitely confirmed number, about 7000, but 13000 below the highest estimate of civilian deaths..that means that 8000 have died, how many injured, how many homes mistaken blown up. That is what this is really all about. If you do not think about this you are only looking at part of a much larger picture..In Viet Nam, 55,000 Americans lost their lives, again the estimates, are impossible to know, perhaps 500,000- 800,000 Vietnames lost their lives, one unconfirmed number was a million.

[JohnCrichton]

Reading also that children are being given grenades to lob at our soldiers too.

But at least we're doing "the right thing" by Bush's account.

I've never hated the direction the world is going in more. Honestly I'm just disgusted...

We're suppose to be the good guys.

This is not good.

[Clayface]

But at least we're doing "the right thing" by Bush's account.

From a report in April 2003:
The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq (during Saddam's reign). Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power.

Yep, stopping Saddam was definitely not the right thing to do. :rolleyes:

I love how the media portrays Iraq as a complete disaster, and how much they love to play up any bad aspect, and downplay anything good that happens. You know, I work with a whole lot of military personel in my job, many of which have been in Iraq. And you know what I hear from every single one of them? Complaints about how poorly the media is portraying what's really going on over there. I hear stories of how greatful the average Iraqi citizen is, how much praise and kindness these individual received from people on the streets while they were over there, how the violence is isolated to specific areas of the country and not nearly as widespread as the media makes it out to be. Yet all I see from the media is doomsday senarios and stories that make it appear like the entire country has picked up guns, sticks, and rocks and is trying to chase us out of the place. Its really rather sickening, and it makes me sad when I see others here in the US buy into that crap.

[JohnCrichton]

I fully admit I'm not fit for these kind of debates. That seems more fit for the likes of oldtoonguy, but honestly, down to my core this doesn't feel right. How it's being done... how it's being handled... it doesn't feel right.

[sun]

From a report in April 2003:


Yep, stopping Saddam was definitely not the right thing to do. :rolleyes:
We did not stop Stalin, We did not stop Mao, we have not stopped that fellow in North Korea, or the Iranians, or what happened in Ruanda, we have not stopped the genicide in Sudan, ,,Sadam was a very bad man, but the U.S.A. cannot stop every bad man..If we try, and they are not a proven direct threat,(and I think that is the key) then, it will never end, and you know,sadly, it may never end.:( Stuart

[Clayface]

We did not stop Stalin, We did not stop Mao, we have not stopped that fellow in North Korea, or the Iranians, or what happened in Ruanda, we have not stopped the genicide in Sudan, ,,Sadam was a very bad man, but the U.S.A. cannot stop every bad man..If we try, and they are not a proven direct threat,(and I think that is the key) then, it will never end, and you know,sadly, it may never end.:( Stuart

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

No, we can't stop every one of them, but that doesn't mean we should sit and let them all get away with it either. We can only chip away at 'em one at a time. And I think we're obligated to do what we can when we can. You take your victories where you can get 'em. The international community should have put a stop to Saddam a long time ago. They didn't, so we did. It doesn't matter whether he was a direct threat to us or not - the mass murder he caused to his own people should have been enough to motivate the international community (and any human being with a conscience, IMO) to take some serious action. And honestly, can you truely say the world or our country was any safer with Saddam in power? Do you honestly believe he would have come to his senses some day and started playing nice with the world, rather than slowly rebuild his power until he could strike a blow that would be as bad or worse than what we've already suffered on 9/11?

It just makes me angry any time someone says it wasn't the right thing to do - how anyone can look at the huge number of murders commited by Saddam, as well as the tortures and other atrocities he's commited, and still say that makes absolutely no sense to me.

We'll see if the international community sits on their hands again with the latest happenings in Sudan....

[JohnCrichton]

But why Saddam first? Atrocities are happening all over the world. Why all this talk of Saddam's non-existant doomsday device to get us over there to fight for freedom?

There are just too many twists and shady connections that you don't even have to get a magnifying glass out to see.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Then around the world I guess we're guitly of letting evil triumph.

Had I only heard the words, "He's killing innocent people by the thousands. Frell that," then... I dunno. But twisting in a fictional Bin Laden connection and doomsday devices.... it all seems wrong. Why lie to get us to "do the right thing?"

[Clayface]

But why Saddam first? Atrocities are happening all over the world.

Indeed, they are happening all over the world. And what's the international community doing about it? Nothing. Or at least, not enough. So, we have to start somewhere. Why Iraq first? Any number of reasons. Because we had the best chance at international support (even though it fell through in the end), because Saddam's regime is one of the only with a history of 10+ years of UN sanction violations, because it was unfinished business, because we were relatively sure that Saddam didn't have a fully functional nuclear weapon to use in a scorched earth campaign (note that a lot of the other big threats around the world do have nuclear capabilities, and thus are harder to deal with), because if he hadn't already, there was the possibility of Saddam joining forces with Al Queda (another threat in the immediate region), because strategically Iraq was the "easiest" target, etc., etc., etc. Name a better first target where we could have achieved as much as we have. My only gripe is how things have gone after Saddam was taken out of power - I don't think we needed to lose as many people as we have, and wouldn't have had as many casulties if there was a better plan in place.

Why all this talk of Saddam's non-existant doomsday device to get us over there to fight for freedom?

That's a whole different debate. For the record, Saddam did indeed have weapons of mass destruction - he had missles he was not allowed to have and which he swore time and again he didn't have - missles he fired at us when we first invaded Iraq. He just didn't have the large number of chemical/biological weapons they were expecting, and thanks to the media, "weapons of mass destruction" has become synonamous with biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons, and that's the aspect the media and the anti-war contingent keeps harping on. Who said Saddam had a doomsday device? I don't recall the administration ever actually saying that. They did say that Saddam had weapons that could kill lots of people (true), and that he may have some terrible weapons like bilogical or chemical weapons (possibly true, though no evidence was found of large quantites). It was the media that whipped the general public up into a frenzy. Since this sort of thing has been debated to death in the various other political threads we've had, I'm not going to get into this whole debate right now unless you really want to. I'll just state that I don't believe that Bush purposefully misled anyone.

I'll also point out that we had the legal right to do what we did, and the international community knows it. Why do you think they've not brought up any charges against Bush or the US? Because legally, under the numerous UN approved sanctions over the years, we had the right to go in and do what we did. The issue is now a moral one rather than a legal one, and morally, as i said before, I believe we did the right thing based on the atrocities Saddam was committing.


"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Then around the world I guess we're guitly of letting evil triumph.

Yep. And thank god Bush had the balls to be the first to start doing something about it. (It's too bad he has such a lousy position on so many social issues, which really sours me on the man)

[Czar Gato]

We did not stop Stalin, We did not stop Mao, we have not stopped that fellow in North Korea, or the Iranians, or what happened in Ruanda, we have not stopped the genicide in Sudan, ,,Sadam was a very bad man, but the U.S.A. cannot stop every bad man..If we try, and they are not a proven direct threat,(and I think that is the key) then, it will never end, and you know,sadly, it may never end.:( StuartYes, we cannot stop all the bad men, but that doesn't mean we should be complacent and not try when we think we have a chance. I'd rather we were inconsistand and helped where we think we could when we had the avantage of doing so that sitting back and saying "Gee, we didn't stop Stalin when he sent all those people to the Siberian gulags, so we should be fair and not help Saddam, either."

[Clayface]

Yes, we cannot stop all the bad men, but that doesn't mean we should be complacent and not try when we think we have a chance. I'd rather we were inconsistand and helped where we think we could when we had the avantage of doing so that sitting back and saying "Gee, we didn't stop Stalin when he sent all those people to the Siberian gulags, so we should be fair and not help Saddam, either."

Exactly the point I was trying to make. Thank you for doing it in a much more eloquent way. :)

[Psycho Fox]

And honestly, can you truely say the world or our country was any safer with Saddam in power?
Depends on how you see the world. To some the world is less safer not because Saddam is gone but because a nation with enough WMDs to end all life on Earth acted agressivly. I know alot of Americans don't see the US having tons of WMDs a issue but in reality it is like a person with a bomb straped to their chest, you kinda focus on the bomb instead of the person.

You have the possibility that this will lead to escalation to the point of extinction of man kind. Also this won't get to the root of the problems (that is if you see terrorism as a symptom) and this just takes effort away from bringing peace and understanding.

[Czar Gato]

Exactly the point I was trying to make. Thank you for doing it in a much more eloquent way. :)Thank you! You always have good arguments, too. :)

[Clayface]

Depends on how you see the world. To some the world is less safer not because Saddam is gone but because a nation with enough WMDs to end all life on Earth acted agressivly. I know alot of Americans don't see the US having tons of WMDs a issue but in reality it is like a person with a bomb straped to their chest, you kinda focus on the bomb instead of the person.

Very true - that's a definite risk any time you take action in a foreign country: the way you're perceived. The question each person has to ask themselves is whether that risk is worth it, or if its better to sit back and let a man like Saddam terrorize and kill his people.

You have the possibility that this will lead to escalation to the point of extinction of man kind.

Yep, and by not doing anything, you have the exact same risk. You have the risk of terrorist groups and dictators like Saddam getting a strong enough foothold in the world to eventually wipe you off the face of the earth. We did nothing of any real ignificance when Al Quada attacked us during Clinton's administration, and it escalated to the destruction of the World Trade Center and the loss of thousands of lives on US soil.

Also this won't get to the root of the problems (that is if you see terrorism as a symptom) and this just takes effort away from bringing peace and understanding.

You can't bring peace and understanding into a country that caught in the stranglehold of a dictator like Saddam. You can't get the message to the Iraqi people if all they're allowed to hear is the one-sided rantings of their dictator.

[Chris Wood]

And thank god Bush had the balls to be the first to start doing something about it. )[/color]

Bush had the balls to ignore the big threats (like North Korea) to stomp on a ready and weak target because he was failing to catch Bin Laden and needed to look tough doing something.

You can't bring peace and understanding into a country that caught in the stranglehold of a dictator like Saddam. You can't get the message to the Iraqi people if all they're allowed to hear is the one-sided rantings of their dictator.

Hmmm, it worked pretty well in Eastern Europe, and slowly but surely it's chipping away at the edges in China.

[guinaevere]

We did not stop Stalin, We did not stop Mao, we have not stopped that fellow in North Korea, or the Iranians, or what happened in Ruanda, we have not stopped the genicide in Sudan,Yes, and while I too have qualms about appearing to be self appointed guardians of the world (which we aren't but many take every opportunity to paint us as), I also see that Iraq was a very different case.

They posed a direct threat to the freedom loving countries of this world. But even so, this was SO much more than about going after Saddam. It was about changing the face of the middle east where a huge number of islamist militants (read: anti freedom) terrorists have been harbored and supported for many years.

Now, thanks to the liberation of the Iraqis, the entire middle east has a different climate. Countries we never would have expected to obligingly work with us have surrendered missile caches that the UN had forbidden.

The international community should have put a stop to Saddam a long time ago. They didn't, so we did.Just to add to that, it wasn't just us. The Bush Administration did a brilliant job of putting together a global coalition to go in and liberate Iraq. First one that tells me how many countries were actively involved (directly and indirectly) gets a gold star.

I'll give you a hint. It's over 20. And it includes a good portion of european countries (with the obvious exception of France & Germany) which isn't all that surprizing, considering they've lived with murderous dictators in their back yards for much of the 20th century.

But twisting in a fictional Bin Laden connection and doomsday devices.... it all seems wrong. Why lie to get us to "do the right thing?"Um... who lied? And what fictional Bin Laden connection? Are you saying after all that's been discovered and divulged that the media is still trying to portay some scenario where Saddams regime never supported al Queda?!

[Emerald Archer]

People need remedial math apparantly:

1004 have died in Iraq

3000+ Died at Ground Zero.

And if Saddam had gotten the bomb, multiply by a factor or 10,000. It's always amazes me that people who have a democratic form of government seldom feel the need to fight to perserve it, while thoughs that don't have it would gladly give up their lives to get it.

And please, let us not Quote the New York Times or the Washington Post. They are about as impartial in this debate as John "Live Shot" Kerry is. They have only one agenda, that is the defeat of the President.

EA

[randomguy]

At any rate, perhaps we should leave the debate over the validity of war to the Presidential Election thread, and focus on honoring and thanking those lost, regardless of our own personal stance.

A suggestion on my part, not meant to be condescending.

[Clayface]

Yes, and while I too have qualms about appearing to be self appointed guardians of the world (which we aren't but many take every opportunity to paint us as), I also see that Iraq was a very different case.

They posed a direct threat to the freedom loving countries of this world. But even so, this was SO much more than about going after Saddam. It was about changing the face of the middle east where a huge number of islamist militants (read: anti freedom) terrorists have been harbored and supported for many years.

Now, thanks to the liberation of the Iraqis, the entire middle east has a different climate. Countries we never would have expected to obligingly work with us have surrendered missile caches that the UN had forbidden.

Just to add to that, it wasn't just us. The Bush Administration did a brilliant job of putting together a global coalition to go in and liberate Iraq. First one that tells me how many countries were actively involved (directly and indirectly) gets a gold star.

I'll give you a hint. It's over 20. And it includes a good portion of european countries (with the obvious exception of France & Germany) which isn't all that surprizing, considering they've lived with murderous dictators in their back yards for much of the 20th century.

Excellent points all around, guinaevere. And you're right, I was unfairly leaving out all those in the international community that did indeed take part. A poor choice of wording on my part. Thank you for correcting me on that - it's far too easy to fall into that isolationist/us-against-them attitude, and that's precisely where I was headed.

At any rate, perhaps we should leave the debate over the validity of war to the Presidential Election thread, and focus on honoring and thanking those lost, regardless of our own personal stance.

A suggestion on my part, not meant to be condescending.

Another excellent point. It's just difficult to do so, when the article itself seems to be an intentional jab at the administration and it's choices. It's another example of the media focusing on the bad, and ignoring the good. Where are the corresponding articles about the Iraqis who are thankful for the lives given to gain their freedom? Where are the articles celebrating the good that's come of it, to balance out the negative articles? There's an underlying political agenda/statement there, one that I have a hard time not challenging.

[guinaevere]

Thank you. Point taken. And this is why I don't often speak up in political threads, because I get so worked up, that I often miss the very obvious. :sweat:

My sincerest appreciation and prayers for all who have served and are serving. For all who have fallen in the fight for the freedom that surrounds our daily lives. For all who have watched their loved ones go off to protect their homes, never to return.

I salute you.

I thank you.

[Chris Wood]

Just to add to that, it wasn't just us. The Bush Administration did a brilliant job of putting together a global coalition to go in and liberate Iraq. First one that tells me how many countries were actively involved (directly and indirectly) gets a gold star.

I'll give you a hint. It's over 20. And it includes a good portion of european countries (with the obvious exception of France & Germany) which isn't all that surprizing, considering they've lived with murderous dictators in their back yards for much of the 20th century.?!

We did go it alone. Most of those countries are nobodies. OK, so the UK sent a lot of troops, and Australia sent a few, but the rest sent a handful or none during major combat. And public opinion in the UK, Australia and Japan wasn't very willing at all.

Italy, Japan, South Korea, Turkey, France, Canada, Germany, India, Pakistan, Russia, China, Egypt, Israel and the vast majority of the world's A list militaries sent no troops for the invasion. You can launch personal attacks on them if you like (and I guess you have already), but the bottom line is that the invasion really wasn't very popular in most countries around the world.

[Shnay]

And please, let us not Quote the New York Times or the Washington Post. They are about as impartial in this debate as John "Live Shot" Kerry is. They have only one agenda, that is the defeat of the President.
Actually, people on staff at The Washington Post were instructed to downplay criticisms or questions about the President's plans in the early stages of the Iraq war.

Back on topic.

Whether you agree with the war or not, the fact remains that 1,005 US soldiers have died, 131 Coalition soldiers from other countries have died, thousands of Iraqi citizens have died, and thousands of Iraqi soldiers (or hostiles, or insurgents, or whatever you want to call them) have died. Many, many more have been injured.

This is the reality of war. It's important that everyone remember this. Not as validation as to whether the war was justified or not (the most justified war conceivable is still going to leave dead soldiers), but as a dark reality of the world.

Take this "milestone" as a time to reflect on all of this. Not from a political standpoint, but from a human one.

[guinaevere]

We did go it alone. Most of those countries are nobodies. Desslar, I honestly can't recall a single time I've read any post of yours that wasn't in some way insulting to an entire group of people, not to mention entire goverments, militaries and populations!!! Do you actively try to be bait people, or is it just a subconscious or hidden talent of yours?

But what really irritates me, is that if I, as a conservative, had even suggested (which I never would, because I happen to have great respect for all involved!) that the countries which have made up this coalition were 'nobodies' I'd be branded as some elitist hate-monger.


Argh. Sorry to the Mods that be. rant over. I just had to get that out of my system.

And sorry to everyone else, I honestly didn't want to bring this topic off track again.

[Evil & Lovin It]

Um... who lied? And what fictional Bin Laden connection? Are you saying after all that's been discovered and divulged that the media is still trying to portay some scenario where Saddams regime never supported al Queda?!Um, actuallly the connection between Saddam and Bin-Laden was not real. Bin-Laden as a religous leader and fundamentaist despised Saddam because he was a completely secular leader.

Also there were no weapons of mass destruction that Saddam had. First off: All biological and chemical weapons productions were stopped before '95. The supposed VX gas that he had: Shelf life of 3 years, last batch: '91. The "White Powder" that Colin powell exhibited, the botuline toxin: shelf life of 2 months, agaain last batch: '92. Any chemical weapons that he may have had expired. Those Mobile labs? never found, never were any pictures obtained.
the picture of a fighter jet exhibited to the UN by Colin Powell that could supposedly deliver anthrax spores or nerve gas? Numerous senior CIA workers can confirm that that jet was dismantled in '95. As for nukes? again CIA intel confirms that he didn't have the technology to manufacture nuclear weapons, that he did not in fact buy materials (that aluminum tube thing? Experts can confirm that was not going to work), and finally that he did not have means (powerful enough rockets) to deliver any of these various WMD's to America.

Sure you can say that the war is justified because we freed the Iraqis from Saddam, and I agree that he was an evil piece of ****, but the reality is, that we cannot be the police force of the world. In case you didn't know, it was medling in the affairs of other countries that brought all these problems of terrorism down on us in the first place. Going into other countries and overthrowing leaders (regardless of how evil and sick), especially without UN backing, is seen by many as America the big bully doing what it wants, and this, my friends, creates hate, hate means more terrorists....

EDIT: Sorry, after reading this I realize that it is a hell of a rant and more than a little off the topic of war (as shnay put it) from a human perspective. War is a terrible thing, but ultimately unnavoidable, as it is the nature of human beings to diagree, and to get carried away. To the families and friends of all those who died in this war, you have my deepest sympathy.

[Emerald Archer]

I was waiting for the "Blame America First" chorus to kick in. Please tell me you are not stating the September 11th was our fault because we "meddled" in other countries affairs. No one can really believe that. We brought this destruction and death upon ourselves......no one can be that naive.

Also the information about WMD's in the previous post is just off the mark. Your assuming that Hussein stopped production if toxins in the mid 90's Well, OK, prove it. No I really mean, prove that Iraq stopped production of WMD's by 95. You can't. Anymore than you can explain why Hussein didn't want inspectors in the country, what was he hiding?

[Evil & Lovin It]

I knew I was going to get flamed for this, but I had to do it anyways. Who was responsible fo 9/11? Who did we say was responsible? Bin-Laden, right? Jeez that's funny cuz as I recall our CIA friggin' trained him!!!! Yeah, belive it or not we have messed around in other countries (especially in the middle east) for a long time and now we're facing the consequences.

As for WMD production? Well there was a certain little interview with the head of bio and chem weapons (for Saddam) who had said that he had overseen the destruction of many of these weapons and that production had stopped. Any idea who gave us reports of WMD's being produced? Defecters provided by a man who had been known to be giving us bad intel, defecters who got US citizenship and a nice big house and a car and a million dollar reward for really good, valuable stuff like that. Kinda strange that we would use intel gather from people who get rewards for telling us more valuable stuff huh?

If you doubt any of the info I'm giving, please check out the documentary Uncoverd: The Iraq War, it has testaments of numerous senior CIA analysts, weapons experts, UN weapons inspectors, and others, from all sides of the political spectrum (yes even some who were for the war).

EDIT: Oh, and BTW: Blame America First Chorus? Don't give me that bull. That's just coming from peope who hate anybody who happens to disagree with America, the kind of people who think America is this shiny great excellent place that is better than EVERYBODY!
1. Don't you think that pisses everybody else in the world off? how would you like it if France started parading around saying that it was the best nation on earth? I think you'd be rather angry, no?
2. The problem isn't that I'm blaming America first, it's that you seem to thave this notion that we have done asolutely nothing wrong, or at least that's the vibe I'm getting...

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,

I promised I wasn't going to get involved in more political discussion. Was doing so well, too, so I'll try to keep this short:

1. It is possible to be pro-soldier and anti-war. If I had my way, the United States military would be the best funded, best equipped, best trained, and most astoundingly bored organization on the planet.

2. It is possible to be against Saddam Hussein and all he stands for, and still be against the way the United States removed him from power. I'm against S.U.V.s, but I think taking it on myself to blow them all up is not a productive way to deal with them.

3. We took resources away from Afghanistan that were hunting down the Taliban and Osama bin Laden to take down Saddam Hussein. Does that make us objectively pro-Osama?

4. America and its allies tell the Muslim world that they have to look into their own hearts and minds to see and address the roots of their own problems instead of blaming America and Israel for everything. Why is it such a strange idea to say we might benefit from that kind of thinking ourselves?

5. For a country founded on an idea that proper government is of the people, by the people, and for the people (http://www.usconstitution.net/getty.html), and that was born from a bunch of guys stating, "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed (http://www.usconstitution.net/declar.html)," we've sure had some (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3257203.stm) funny (http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Story/0,2763,511917,00.html) friends (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/) over the years.

-- Ed/Ace

[guinaevere]

Sorry, having major browser problems.

[guinaevere]

I'm not going to touch on much, because other than a minor faux pas of mine in the DC board recently, I believe I still have some credibility as a level-headed person around here. :D

EDIT: Oh, and BTW: Blame America First Chorus? Don't give me that bull. That's just coming from peope who hate anybody who happens to disagree with AmericaNaw. Not to speak for EA, as he can do very well for himself. But knowing him as I do, I can't see EA as hating anybody.

But you know, E&LI, there are a lot of americans who feel obliged to apologize for anything we do that shows we're not afraid to take a stand.

It's as if they're afraid of greatness. As if they're afraid to consider that we're actually a good country based on wholesome ideals, and which strives to constantly improve.

No, we're not perfect. No country is. Nor will any country ever be. It's part of the human equation.

1. Don't you think that pisses everybody else in the world off?E&LI, are you saying that we should strive to be less great, so those with inferiority complexes are satiated?

how would you like it if France started parading around saying that it was the best nation on earth? I think you'd be rather angry, no?I wouldn't care a pair of fetid dingos kidneys. They can say what they want. If they WERE the best nation on earth and were able to pour billions of dollars into other countries that needed aid, I'd consider moving there.

Why should anyone feel bitter over the success of another?

[Lucky Bob]

1. It is possible to be pro-soldier and anti-war.
Fine. But does this involve taking the fact that 1000 soldiers have died and then making it into another pointless discussion on whether or not the war was right? Sheesh, we've had three mondo threads to that subject. Three. And we covered everything from Saddam's atrocities to the evils of Communism in those threads. I think this is a bit of overkill, especially given the subject matter.

And it's not just you, Ace. It's everyone on both sides. I'm pro-war and I think everyone else against it is a pinko commie, sure. And I'd gladly debate that in any other context. But can't we all at least agree that 1000 soldiers dead is in bad taste to start another political discusion?

Sheesh, again. Indeed.

Thoughts and prayers to the families (http://www.nbc5i.com/news/3719681/detail.html), by the way.

[PressureCooker]

Out of the frying pan...

As one of the few (perhaps only) member of this board to have served in the military, I can honestly say I am sorry for the losses this war has caused.


I have seen the horrors that are generated by a battlefield, and I have lived to tell about them. I'm sure we all remember a little place called Bosnia. I walked across the ripped up pavement and un-earthed mass graves that littered that country.


Yes, war is hell and no, there aren’t any winners... However, someone has to do it. I'm proud to have served my country and I would do it again if asked. I volunteered for it; no one forced me to sign those papers. It's common knowledge (at least with Marines) that you could be ordered to almost certain death at anytime. You just get used to it... or you go Looney. I for one just got used to it.


Oh, and for the curious... I was a Corporal in the Marine Corps. I wasn't a cook or an admin clerk. I was a grunt. I lead my squad into the fires of Hell and back again, and I would do it again. It doesn’t matter to us who we are fighting... If we are ordered to fight, we fight. Sometimes we die, sometimes we don't. I've shot people and I've been shot at. I've also field dressed wounds on dieing Marines knowing full well that they wouldn't make it back to camp. It's just something you have to do. It may not be the most glamorous job, but there will always be a need for the defenders of this country.

[Emerald Archer]

2. The problem isn't that I'm blaming America first, it's that you seem to thave this notion that we have done asolutely nothing wrong, or at least that's the vibe I'm getting...


So your point is that what ever we have done "wrong" in the world justifies the whole sale murder on September 11th? Once again I am aghast at that thinking. But you see, it does indeed fit into the idea that America can do no right.

Your probably way to young to remember that in the 70's a lot of people felt that you either loved America or you could leave it. That was a far right concept. Well this is the antithesis of that, that America is so screwed up that it can't do anything right and deserves everything bad that happens to it. I have always been partial to a quote by the great Senator Barry Goldwater:

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. "

As for me being a hatemonger. I have been called many things, but that's a new one. I can honestly say that the only people I hate are Klingon's (Pre Khitomer Accords) and the Cardassians. You can never trust a Cardy.

EA

[Squall]

I love how the media portrays Iraq as a complete disaster, and how much they love to play up any bad aspect, and downplay anything good that happens. You know, I work with a whole lot of military personel in my job, many of which have been in Iraq. And you know what I hear from every single one of them? Complaints about how poorly the media is portraying what's really going on over there. I hear stories of how greatful the average Iraqi citizen is, how much praise and kindness these individual received from people on the streets while they were over there, how the violence is isolated to specific areas of the country and not nearly as widespread as the media makes it out to be. Yet all I see from the media is doomsday senarios and stories that make it appear like the entire country has picked up guns, sticks, and rocks and is trying to chase us out of the place. Its really rather sickening, and it makes me sad when I see others here in the US buy into that crap.I agree 100%. Just look at the numbers -- there are 25 million Iraqis, and 200,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. Now, if even 10% of the Iraqis were at war trying to drive the U.S. out -- that is, 2.5 million Iraqis -- the U.S. troops would be completely overwhelmed, the causualties would be catastrophic, and the U.S. would have pulled out of Iraq very quickly.

But guess what? This isn't happening. Why? For one thing, most Iraqis welcomed the U.S. as liberators that deposed a madman dictator (Saddam Heussein) they could not get rid of themselves. Second, after Heussein was gone, the U.S. proved its claim of liberation with its actions -- U.S. troops are helping Iraqis repair old and build new hospitals, schools, city halls, etc. and helping Iraq's diverse populations get together, draft and sign a constitution, and get a fresh start on life. I believe the U.S. has every plan to make Afghanistan and Iraq the new Japan and Germany -- former dictatorships that became peaceful, productive countries.

Even today the media manages to shock me every now and then with the way they spin the news. For example, remember those protests in Iraq that happened earlier this year in Baghdad? Well, if Heussein were in power, all those people would have been jailed and/or killed for protesting. The U.S. troops just let them protest, only making sure that it didn't turn into a riot (which is common procedure in any country, including the U.S.). Also, the news likes to show the buildings that get blown up, but never the ones that get repaired or built from scratch.

Getting rid of a dictator is never a clean, easy job, but with modern technology and great care, the U.S. made sure that it was the cleanest and easiest dictator deposing in military history. (As an example to compare to, study what it took to depose Adolf Hitler from Germany.) It doesn't help either when Heussein's cronies and random terrorists take to using schools and mosques as hiding places either.

As for me being a hatemonger. I have been called many things, but that's a new one. I can honestly say that the only people I hate are Klingon's (Pre Khitomer Accords) and the Cardassians. You can never trust a Cardy.
Those Cardassians are bad news. :D The Dominion gave them a taste of their own medicine though, so I think that they finally learned their lesson...

[Boy Wonder]

I personally think the US should have pulled out after Saddam was captured. With all the guerilla fighting in the streets, people who shouldn't die are dead. Here's a good title for a next Hot Shots movie: Hot Shots! and the Search of Oil (directed by George W. Bush after it turns out he lost the election).

[sun]

Howdy,

I promised I wasn't going to get involved in more political discussion. Was doing so well, too, so I'll try to keep this short:

1. It is possible to be pro-soldier and anti-war. If I had my way, the United States military would be the best funded, best equipped, best trained, and most astoundingly bored organization on the planet.

2. It is possible to be against Saddam Hussein and all he stands for, and still be against the way the United States removed him from power. I'm against S.U.V.s, but I think taking it on myself to blow them all up is not a productive way to deal with them.

3. We took resources away from Afghanistan that were hunting down the Taliban and Osama bin Laden to take down Saddam Hussein. Does that make us objectively pro-Osama?

4. America and its allies tell the Muslim world that they have to look into their own hearts and minds to see and address the roots of their own problems instead of blaming America and Israel for everything. Why is it such a strange idea to say we might benefit from that kind of thinking ourselves?

5. For a country founded on an idea that proper government is of the people, by the people, and for the people (http://www.usconstitution.net/getty.html), and that was born from a bunch of guys stating, "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed (http://www.usconstitution.net/declar.html)," we've sure had some (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3257203.stm) funny (http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Story/0,2763,511917,00.html) friends (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/) over the years.

-- Ed/Ace I am not going to get into this one, all that needs to be said has been said, but, I will say one thing, Ace, great quotes, someting about "of the people, by the people, and for the people" and" deriving their just Powers for the concent of the governed," ,,,hmm haven't I heard that before somewhere? Great quotes Ace, good for you...If you dont know where fellow tooners, follow the links, you should...Stuart:)

[sun]

Out of the frying pan...

As one of the few (perhaps only) member of this board to have served in the military, I can honestly say I am sorry for the losses this war has caused.


I have seen the horrors that are generated by a battlefield, and I have lived to tell about them. I'm sure we all remember a little place called Bosnia. I walked across the ripped up pavement and un-earthed mass graves that littered that country.


Yes, war is hell and no, there aren’t any winners... However, someone has to do it. I'm proud to have served my country and I would do it again if asked. I volunteered for it; no one forced me to sign those papers. It's common knowledge (at least with Marines) that you could be ordered to almost certain death at anytime. You just get used to it... or you go Looney. I for one just got used to it.


Oh, and for the curious... I was a Corporal in the Marine Corps. I wasn't a cook or an admin clerk. I was a grunt. I lead my squad into the fires of Hell and back again, and I would do it again. It doesn’t matter to us who we are fighting... If we are ordered to fight, we fight. Sometimes we die, sometimes we don't. I've shot people and I've been shot at. I've also field dressed wounds on dieing Marines knowing full well that they wouldn't make it back to camp. It's just something you have to do. It may not be the most glamorous job, but there will always be a need for the defenders of this country. Thank you for serving this country..for all of us, whichever side we take, (I will leave that to another thread) we are all greatful..It is probably the most difficult thing one ever does..thank you for us all

[Evil & Lovin It]

So your point is that what ever we have done "wrong" in the world justifies the whole sale murder on September 11th? Once again I am aghast at that thinking. But you see, it does indeed fit into the idea that America can do no right.First off: ARG!

No, this is not what I am saying at all. Revenge or retaliation or any extreme, violent version of these, is almost never the right course to take. I am simply saying that in this situation niether side is blameless. It wasn't our buisiness to mess around in the affairs of others, but people certainly have no right to kill our citizens for doing so.

Reagardless, we had no severe problems with terrorism (by this I mean the modern terrorism that we all know, the "Militant Islamic Extremist" steryotype), before World War Two. Post World War Two, Israel, all that (If you are older than I am, as you make yourself seem to be, then you should know all about this) is where most of our problems with the middle east picked up. I'm sure that nobody intended or even knew that this would come back to haunt us, but it did. Most of our problems today are spawned from this and other things we have done in this middle east (such as funding the taliban so that they might fight the Russians, considered the lesser of two evils, as the taliban and Osama already diddn't like the US much either).

So, yeah, I in no way think that the US can do nothing right, however, I also do not believe that we can do nothing wrong.

[Emerald Archer]

It wasn't our buisiness to mess around in the affairs of others, but people certainly have no right to kill our citizens for doing so..

If you see someone murdering your neighbor, what do you do? DO you let it go, safe and secure in the knowledge that at least this time it wasn't you? So we ignore the world and hope they ignore us? It's been tried, it doesn't work. Ask Neville Chamberlain, after all he prevented World War II.


Post World War Two, Israel, all that (If you are older than I am, as you make yourself seem to be, then you should know all about this) is where most of our problems with the middle east picked up. I'm sure that nobody intended or even knew that this would come back to haunt us, but it did. .


So, it's our support for Israel that's at fault here. Hmm, yes. I see. So does Israel have a right to exist? Or should the nice civilized PLO rule that whole area. So our support of the only democratic government in the middle east has come back to haunt us????? Well, I should have seen that coming a mile away. We brought the terrorist attacks upon ourself because we meddle in world affairs and we support "Zionists".

As for being older, oh yes by far. I was born during a time in this country when we supported out friends and didn't run out on them. It was only after we got the cut and run mentality that out problems began. And now the same panacea is being preached for Iraq. Cut and run. Worked well in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Nicaragua, Iran and a few other countries. Time to do it again.

Tell me, as the last Super Power in the world do we have any special responsibilities?

Since Tomorrow is September 11th, I think this discussion needs to be shelved so that some proper respect can be shown to those people who died in the greatest sneak attack in American History. Worse that Pearl Harbor, and spurred not my Territorial ambition, but Religious Hatred.

[Avery]

Thank you for serving this country..for all of us, whichever side we take, (I will leave that to another thread) we are all greatful..It is probably the most difficult thing one ever does..thank you for us all
Amen to that . . . I typically lurk in these types of threads, but I'd like to come out and say your dedication and bravery (and that of the soldiers in Iraq right now, and in any other war) is astounding. As corny as this sounds, you all make me proud to be an American.

You know, I don't think I've ever met a single person who was anti-troop . . . almost everyone I know is anti-war, but soldiers? Backed 100%.

[PressureCooker]

Heh. You guys are making me all green inside again (and thats a good thing, everything in the Marines is green:D)! Thanks for the support guys.

All too often in this day and age I wonder how the fact that I served in the military will be received. Long gone are the days of the ticker-tape parades and banners strung across the street in your home town that welcomed you home. Now you have to worry what name someone might call you after they learn the "horrible" truth that you served the country in a foreign land.

It's funny tho... Most (99%) of the seniors I talk to are surprised to learn that a young person like myself had volunteered to join the military. "It seems that kids today don't have the respect for their country like we did when we were young" said a elderly lady to me about a week ago. I guess in some ways, she was right. But I replied with this statement... "You would be surprised how loyal some people are. I served with some of the bravest, honorable, and most loyal bunch of guys to ever serve this country."

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a war-monger. I'm just a medical retired fighting man who is no longer wanted by the military. My personal views on this war are not relevant to this thread, nor are they important. The fact that these men and women fought and died for your ability to protest the war speaks volumes. Don't hate us for what we do, we hate ourselves enough for that.

http://members.tccoa.com/beerbarron/me%20(Small).jpg

I'm on the left of the pic. LCpl Bernal (my roommate at the time) went with my fireteam on patrol later that night after this picture was taken. He never made it back to camp (well, my heavy gunner and I both took turns carrying his body back, but "he" never made it)

[Evil & Lovin It]

1. I'm sorry. I intended to comply to the request of Dethayre in the US pres. election thread and "let the cannons fall silent" for today, but I have to say something.

It wasn't our buisiness to mess around in the affairs of others, but people certainly have no right to kill our citizens for doing so.If you see someone murdering your neighbor, what do you do? DO you let it go, safe and secure in the knowledge that at least this time it wasn't you? So we ignore the world and hope they ignore us? It's been tried, it doesn't work. Ask Neville Chamberlain, after all he prevented World War II.What are you smoking?
In case you didn't realize, in this particular sentence, I AM AGREEING WITH YOU!!! I am agreeing that the attacks of sept 11 were not justified. Did you just not realize this, or are you really foolish enough to argue about probably the only idea we share?

[Emerald Archer]

Sorry Evil, done arguing with you. Perhaps when you can be more rational we can continue this discussion. So far you have accused me of being a hate monger and a stoner. I don't like personal attacks and I won't engage in a discussion anymore with anyone who cannot be civil. Perhaps in time you will be able to argue your case with out name calling and personal diatribes.

Also I don't think we share any idea in common. I feel we are fully justified in doing what we must to survive as a nation. You feel that we should role over and appease, "Peace in out time".

Beyond that you don't even attempt to justify your attack on Israel. We're done ole chum.



EA

[Evil & Lovin It]

:shrug:
Well I guess that's just as well, since I was getting a little tired of you twisting my words. (you would make an excellent lawyer (oh, and I don't mean that as a personal insult)).

For the record: I never called you a "hatemonger", you simply assumed that was what I meant, and as for stoner? You're kidding right? The question "what are you smoking" is an informal and rarely serious way of saying that you have done or said something that is rather strange. :rolleyes:

[Stewie]

Hats off to all those who died serving our country. Regardless of our position on the war, we should all be able to agree that the soldiers, sailors, Marines, and other service personnel are not the bad guys. Even if we feel that they are being sent to do the wrong thing in the wrong way, they are not the bad guys. I think both sides miss that point.

Ace, I'd like to thank you for speaking up. In so many discussions (not just these boards, everywhere) it feel like my side of the argument is represented by people who either miss the point or can't get it across. You are the exception.

PressureCooker, oohra! (If you can tell me exactly how to spell that, you'd be the first. I doubt there is an "official" spelling.) Hats off to you as well.
Now you have to worry what name someone might call you after they learn the "horrible" truth that you served the country in a foreign land.As for this, if you feel that way it's too bad (unfortunate). There certainly are people that dislike you or feel that fact the you served in a foreign land is "horrible." But I think they are an extremely small minority. I feel secure when I say that most of us that were opposed to the war (or some aspect of it) think that those people are freaking nuts. You're okay in our book.

Semper Fi, Denny. Glad you're already home.

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,

All too often in this day and age I wonder how the fact that I served in the military will be received. Long gone are the days of the ticker-tape parades and banners strung across the street in your home town that welcomed you home. Now you have to worry what name someone might call you after they learn the "horrible" truth that you served the country in a foreign land.

I sympathize with your concern, especially after the demonstrations after Vietnam. However, I would like to think that these days, anybody with any sense at all recognizes that the military, in and of itself, is not the problem. As in Vietnam and nearly every single war after it, I'm perfectly willing to look all the way up the chain of command to find the problem, which more often than not has its roots in some schmuck out of uniform.

Even though I think some of the anti-Iraq war factions are completely off-base in their beliefs and assertions, I don't think anybody's about to call a servicemember a baby killer, or vilify someone without evidence that they actually did something wrong.

In any event, I salute you and all the other men and women who have fought and bled and died for the country. As I said, I am pro-soldier and anti-war. I am not such a foolish peacenik to think that the military is completely unnecessary. However, I'm also not such a rah-rah go-USA war monger to think that the military is ever (or should ever be) the first or the best solution to a problem.

-- Ed/Ace